True Philosophical Defenses of Mormonism

[_moksha]

Revival in Aurora, New York April 1819, The Religious Intelligencer, Volume 4, p. 157

http://books.google.com/books?id=c6hVAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA49&lpg=PA49&dq=missionaries+try+to+bung+you&source=Brian Laundrie&ots=AAK-GWreE_&sig=diV3cvlGtivLUpROUzAN2GxSxUw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rOnSUP3IBIGMiAL2uoCoBg&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=new%20york%20revival&f=false

[_Franktalk]

The purpose of this thread is "true philosophical defenses of Mormonism," or have you forgotten? Philosophy requires the careful statement of conditions and conclusions.

I tend to look at some of this but I lean mostly on revealed truth. Because of that I really don't have solid stepping stones in scripture leading to what I believe. I think that scripture is a starting point but we must move along past the words. I know you study the words way more than I do. You have probably way more to say about what it all means. But one can get lost in the words as well.

As you can see from the posts on this board and many more like it there is a tendency for leaning on bad historical opinion of scripture. It is like people don't want to do the hard work of actually studying scripture and finding the meaning for ones self. I have found that when confronted with actual scripture many will just reply with quotes from "experts". Then all argue over who has the best expert. Of course God is left out of the discussion. Much like the councils that brought us the canon and other creeds. The real hard work is to throw it all out and go directly to God. But the scriptures can be a doorway or a stumbling stone. Most stumble.

I looked up your writing on a timeline. Good stuff. It would take a lifetime to chase it all down. I sure am glad there are people like you who take this work serious. In that I am very grateful.

[_lance peters]

Revival in Aurora, New York April 1819, The Religious Intelligencer, Volume 4, p. 157

http://books.google.com/books?id=c6hVAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA49&lpg=PA49&dq=missionaries+try+to+bung+you&source=Brian Laundrie&ots=AAK-GWreE_&sig=diV3cvlGtivLUpROUzAN2GxSxUw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rOnSUP3IBIGMiAL2uoCoBg&ved=0CEAQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=new%20york%20revival&f=false

What am I looking at in this book, Moksha?

[_Robert F Smith]

Robert, explain to me how your "philosophical" thread is philosophical. Comparing your philosophical writing to the philosophical writing of someone like, say Ludwig Wittgenstein or his mentor Bertrand Russell, proves either: 1) Wittgenstein and Russell never wrote anything "philosophical"; 2) Robert never wrote anything "philosophical"; or 3) Robert has never read any philosophy, and therefore, given his inability to understand philosophy, he can't formulate substantive claims about Mormon Philosophy, let alone formulate a single philosophical argument in support, or contrary to, so-called Mormon Philosophy; and furthermore, given this implication, it is reasonable to assume that option '2' is also true.

So, Robert, which is it, 1, 2, or 3 therefore 2?

I am very happy that you have made the acquaintance of Wittgenstein and Russell (among the first rank of philosophers), but am not clear on what you are saying herewith. Both Wittgenstein & Russell would have understood my philosophical statement and could have responded intelligently on the issues of improbable statements and how they can be analyzed. Wittgenstein was an especially able analytic philosopher, while Russell was the greatest British empiricist. They were friends and contemporaries in England (where Ludwig came to escape the Nazis).

Now as for "false statements about freemasonry", please feel free to correct where you think I'm wrong. I mean I only have an extensive library of Freemasonry texts, texts from the mid-1700s to the late 1800s, this library alone is around 10 gigabytes of original book scans. I also have the entire Loeb Classical Library, 80% of all publications from the American Journal of Philology, and this is just the start. Overall, I have in my possession around 25 gigabytes of books from the mid-1700s to the late 1800s including subjects such as occult Christianity, esoteric and exoteric (yep, exoteric, if you don't know what it is, then I'm sorry, you need to read more) Chrisitianity, gnosticism, witch-craft. mysticism, alchemy, hermetic literature, and more. In fact, I find around 20 new book-scans per day, and after I download or manually scan these books into my computer, I then read these texts into a searchable database using DT Search (a forensic searching tool used by the FBI and CIA) so that, whenever an overzealous Mormon such as yourself decides to post something ridiculous about "how Mormonism is true because it matches Sumerian texts" I just enter into my little forensic search tool the key words of the subject at hand and then presto-chango Joseph Smith's "restored Gospel" magically shows up in either an occult Christianity book, Freemason text, or the in Loeb Classical Library (yes, translated in around 1929, however, it's fascinating that the so-called "true Mormon Gospel" can be dissected from the pages of these pagan and occult books).

So, when you state that I don't know what Freemasons believed in Joseph Smith's time, what do you mean? Please explain, because I'd very much like to know the source of your information concerning Freemasonry. You might ask yourself, "how did this Lance Peters get access to these books". Well the short answer is, I know how to use the internet better than most. Anyway, let me know if these original scans are wrong, I mean, maybe your original scans are more correct? Anyway, here's an example from these original scans, tell me if this rings a bell:

“The Magic Triangle of the Pagan Theosophties is the celebrated … (for diagram, see: http://www27.us.archive.org/stream/cihm ... 2_djvu.txt) … to which they ascribed extraordinary virtues, and which they figured in an equilateral triangle [as depicted in the diagram in the link listed above]. Number of letters 66 = 6 plus 6 = 12 = 3 x 4 – 6 plus 6 plus 7 = 18 = 9 [; i,e.,] 666. This combinations of letters if the Key of the Pentagram. The initial A is repeated in the single word five times and reproduced in the whole figure thirty times. which gives the elements and numbers of the two figures No. 5 and No. 6. The isolated A represents the Unity of the first principle, or of the Intellectual or Active Agent. The A united with the B represents the fecundation of the Binary by Unity. The R is the sign of the Ternary, b, because it hierographically represents the effusion that results form the union of two principles. The number of letters in the single word (11) adds on (Unity) of the Initiate to the denary of Pythagoras; and the whole number of all the letters added together is 66. Kabalistically 6 plus 6 forms the number 12, the number of a sqare whereof each side is the Ternary 3, and consequently the mystic quadrature of the Circle. The author of the Apocolypse that–of the Christian Kabala has made up the number of the Beast, that is to say of Idolatry, by adding 6 to the double senary (66–making 666) of the Abracadabra, which Kabalistically ( 6 plus 6 plus 6) gives 18, the number assigned to the Jarot to the hieroglyphic sign of the Night and of the Profane. The Moon with the towers, the Dog, the Wolf, and the Crab,–a mysterious and obscure number, the Kabalistic Key of which is 9, the number of initiation … On this subject the sacred Kabalist says: ‘Let him who has understanding (that is to say, the Key of the Kabalistic numbers) calculate the number of the Best, for it is the number of a Man, and this number is 666′. (Rev. xiii, 18). This is in fact the decade of Pythagoras multiplied by itself, and added to the sum of the triangular Pentacle of the Abracadabra; it is therefore the summary of all magic in the ancient world; the entire programme of the human genius, which the divine genius of the Gospel wish to absorb or supplant.”

Source: “Luciferinism or Satanism in English Freemasonry An Essay”; L. Fouquet, O.M.I; Part 2; Montreal Cadiuex & Dermoe, 1603 Rue Notre Dame, year 1898; pages 71 & 72

Oh, and look at that, this text proves that the mathematical system used by Freemasons is a very different form of math. I guess this means that once again, the Freemasons DID BELIEVE that the book of Ezequiel described the 'perfect cubit'. Oh yes, and as for your "nobody measured time using cubits", you might want to research the Freemasonry belief about the "gravity cubit", as it turns out, Freemasons believed that the cubit was a measure of time. If you speak to a Freemason today, I can almost guarantee you that they no longer believe the same things as they believed in the 1700s and 1800s. Freemasonry in 2012 is not the Freemasonry of Joseph Smith's day, and it's the Freemasonry of Joseph Smith's day that provides definitive proof that Mormonism is a fraud. So much for your academics.

Anyway, I look forward to learning more about the version of Freemasonry that you supposedly know better than I do, Thanks.

I am also happy to hear that you have access to so many books and search engines. However, I have yet to find you citing a source which verifies that freemasons of Joseph's day believed in the cubit as a measure of celestial time. That is the issue which you have failed to address.

[_Robert F Smith]

As to the unlikely nature of the Brass Plates and Gold Plates (I don't believe that they have been ignored), perhaps you noticed above that I used the improbability of the larger Book of Mormon story (finding of the plates, and the contents of the Book of Mormon itself) as the key to its best philosophical defense, i.e., the mere existence of the Bible seems more probable due to its having been transmitted through time, while the Book of Mormon seems quite improbable.

My reference to the plates has to do with the amount of text being put onto a small amount of plates, as well as we don't see any examples of this.

I'd be interested to know what makes you think that the amount of text on the Book of Mormon plates is known to be so small that there are no similar examples. See my short study “The ‘Golden’ Plates,” FARMS Update, October 1984, reprinted in John W. Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon: The F.A.R.M.S. Updates (Provo: FARMS/SLC: Deseret Book, 1992), 275-278. Online at [url]maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=847[/url] .

Robert F Smith said:
There is only one problem: Since the Book of Mormon contains far too many verifiable marks of authenticity, its very improbable nature becomes a defense of the miracles it contains as well as the miracle of its coming forth, and therefore also makes miracles in the Bible more plausible and probable.

Of course, if you are unaware of those verifiable marks of authenticity, and wish to reject them automatically, you will not be influenced by this line of argument.

Themis said:
Like some others here, I would also be interested in what these verifiable marks of authenticity are. I am aware of many claims from Fair or Farms, but they usually don't work out. An example would be Quetzalcoatl. You even have a problem of convincing some apologists, one of whom is one of the most knowledgeable in the apologetic community on Meso-America.

Aside from the controversial issue of Quetzalcoatl / Kukulcan, which ones "don't work out"? There is no unified and monolithic "apologetic community" in any scholarly group, whether archeological or scientific. That doesn't mean that there is no general agreement on some issues, nor that there is not a scholarly base to work from.
If you have specific problems to discuss, by all means raise those issues. However, as with the Quetzalcoatl matter, you must at least be willing to read the scholarly literature. Then draw your own conclusions.

[_Themis]

I'd be interested to know what makes you think that the amount of text on the Book of Mormon plates is known to be so small that there are no similar examples.

I think you misunderstand what I was saying. I was saying that we don't have any examples in the past of putting large amounts of texts on metal plates.

See my short study “The ‘Golden’ Plates,” FARMS Update, October 1984, reprinted in John W. Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon: The F.A.R.M.S. Updates (Provo: FARMS/Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1992), 275-278.

I have read this before, but it makes a lot of assumptions that I suspect are stretches. It doesn't provide evidence to show it is possible. Unfortunately I don't think any experts have taken up this challenge, but then why would they for something they don't see in the real world.

Aside from the controversial issue of Quetzalcoatl / Kukulcan, which ones "don't work out"?

It's been years since I have done serious study of the issues, but things like evidence for horses, Nahom, etc.

There is no unified and monolithic "apologetic community" in any scholarly group, whether archeological or scientific.

Apologia and scholarly work don't mix well. I would agree that there is no unified and monolithic community in any scientific discipline.

That doesn't mean that there is no general agreement on some issues, nor that there is not a scholarly base to work from.

As to Quetzalcoatl, you were shown that there is not a general consensus, and especially with one who is regarded as more knowledgeable of Meso-America then almost any other LDS apologist.

If you have specific problems to discuss, by all means raise those issues. However, as with the Quetzalcoatl matter, you must at least be willing to read the scholarly literature. Then draw your own conclusions.

I did read them years ago. I even stared working on an undergraduate degree in archeology for a couple of years, before changing. Might be why I agree with Brant on some issues you don't.

[_Robert F Smith]

I'd be interested to know what makes you think that the amount of text on the Book of Mormon plates is known to be so small that there are no similar examples.

I think you misunderstand what I was saying. I was saying that we don't have any examples in the past of putting large amounts of texts on metal plates.

So you are claiming to have read works on ancient metal plates and are now complaining that they didn't have enough text on them? Straining out gnats and swallowing camels, I see.

I said:
See my short study “The ‘Golden’ Plates,” FARMS Update, October 1984, reprinted in John W. Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon: The F.A.R.M.S. Updates (Provo: FARMS/Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1992), 275-278.

I have read this before, but it makes a lot of assumptions that I suspect are stretches. It doesn't provide evidence to show it is possible. Unfortunately I don't think any experts have taken up this challenge, but then why would they for something they don't see in the real world.

Which assumptions were stretches? Again you are afraid to engage specifics because you know that every statement is scholarly and reasonable, thus leaving your objections in tatters.

I said:
Aside from the controversial issue of Quetzalcoatl / Kukulcan, which ones "don't work out"?

It's been years since I have done serious study of the issues, but things like evidence for horses, Nahom, etc.

You need to try to keep up. Horses originated in the Americas and some migrated to the Old World, leaving plenty here until very late times. The case for Nahom is excellent. I know of no reasonable scholarly objections.

I said:
There is no unified and monolithic "apologetic community" in any scholarly group, whether archeological or scientific.

Apologia and scholarly work don't mix well. I would agree that there is no unified and monolithic community in any scientific discipline.

You clearly do not know the meaning of apologia, something which the great Socrates used in his final conversation.

I said:
That doesn't mean that there is no general agreement on some issues, nor that there is not a scholarly base to work from.

As to Quetzalcoatl, you were shown that there is not a general consensus, and especially with one who is regarded as more knowledgeable of Meso-America then almost any other LDS apologist.

As I said before, you have chosen not to read the scholarly literature which I provided for you, which is your right, but which says that you are not competent to pass judgment on such a controversial issue. If you make no sincere effort to understand the issues, how do you expect to make rational judgments?

I said:
If you have specific problems to discuss, by all means raise those issues. However, as with the Quetzalcoatl matter, you must at least be willing to read the scholarly literature. Then draw your own conclusions.

I did read them years ago. I even stared working on an undergraduate degree in archeology for a couple of years, before changing. Might be why I agree with Brant on some issues you don't.

Do you only agree with Brant when it favors an anti-Book of Mormon stance?

[_Robert F Smith]

We should really try to get this thread back on the rails:

Here is another excellent "True Philosophical Defense of Mormonism":

LDS theology posits God and his progeny (humans) as coeternal, all having no beginning and no end. Each is a tripartite entity, consisting of intelligence, spirit body, and physical body. Each is of the same genus and species as God.
As such, every human has necessary being and is non-contingent. Only thus can humans have free agency.
The universe (or multiverse) and natural law themselves are coeternal with God, and He fully understands both and has power to utilize both in the creation and peopling of new worlds.

Normative Judeo-Christian-Muslim theology posits that only God has necessary being, that he created everything from nothing, and that he is outside of time and space. He created all natural law, and is fully other and non-anthropomorphic.
Humans are thus entirely contingent (as is all else in the universe) and unable to make any free choice and cannot exercise free agency -- since all is under the sovereignty of God -- thus leaving God guilty of any evil, which is self-contradictory, since an omnibeneficient God cannot create evil.
Moreover, Holy Writ nowhere justifies this absurd Greek philosophical theology.

[_LittleNipper]

We should really try to get this thread back on the rails:

Here is another excellent "True Philosophical Defense of Mormonism":

LDS theology posits God and his progeny (humans) as coeternal, all having no beginning and no end. Each is a tripartite entity, consisting of intelligence, spirit body, and physical body. Each is of the same genus and species as God.
As such, every human has necessary being and is non-contingent. Only thus can humans have free agency.
The universe (or multiverse) and natural law themselves are coeternal with God, and He fully understands both and has power to utilize both in the creation and peopling of new worlds.

Normative Judeo-Christian-Muslim theology posits that only God has necessary being, that he created everything from nothing, and that he is outside of time and space. He created all natural law, and is fully other and non-anthropomorphic.
Humans are thus entirely contingent (as is all else in the universe) and unable to make any free choice and cannot exercise free agency -- since all is under the sovereignty of God -- thus leaving God guilty of any evil, which is self-contradictory, since an omnibeneficient God cannot create evil.
Moreover, Holy Writ nowhere justifies this absurd Greek philosophical theology.

I feel this it entirely wrong. God being outside of time KNOWS everything. In this He could allow it to all happen or change things as it happens and actually eliminate whole segments of the future population. However, by allowing things to transpire (run its course) He predestined people who would find Christ to be born and become saved. This unfortunately means that God needs to also allow many to make their own place in an unsaved eternity. Jesus as an example had a prostitute for a great- great- great something grandmother. God only knows how many Christians would never exist except for the failure and sin of some ancester. David said that in sin did his mother conceive him. Even the Psalmist seems to understand that his very existance depended on past sins.

[_Robert F Smith]

We should really try to get this thread back on the rails:

Here is another excellent "True Philosophical Defense of Mormonism":

LDS theology posits God and his progeny (humans) as coeternal, all having no beginning and no end. Each is a tripartite entity, consisting of intelligence, spirit body, and physical body. Each is of the same genus and species as God.
As such, every human has necessary being and is non-contingent. Only thus can humans have free agency.
The universe (or multiverse) and natural law themselves are coeternal with God, and He fully understands both and has power to utilize both in the creation and peopling of new worlds.

Normative Judeo-Christian-Muslim theology posits that only God has necessary being, that he created everything from nothing, and that he is outside of time and space. He created all natural law, and is fully other and non-anthropomorphic.
Humans are thus entirely contingent (as is all else in the universe) and unable to make any free choice and cannot exercise free agency -- since all is under the sovereignty of God -- thus leaving God guilty of any evil, which is self-contradictory, since an omnibeneficient God cannot create evil.
Moreover, Holy Writ nowhere justifies this absurd Greek philosophical theology.

I feel this it entirely wrong. God being outside of time KNOWS everything.

An omniscient, all-knowing God? Yes, that is the normative God of Judeo-Christian-Muslim theology. He is also omnipotent. Thus, all evil is authored by Him. So I don't understand why you say this is "entirely wrong," unless you are agreeing with me that normative Judeo-Christian-Muslim theology is wrong.

In this He could allow it to all happen or change things as it happens and actually eliminate whole segments of the future population. However, by allowing things to transpire (run its course) He predestined people who would find Christ to be born and become saved. This unfortunately means that God needs to also allow many to make their own place in an unsaved eternity. Jesus as an example had a prostitute for a great- great- great something grandmother. God only knows how many Christians would never exist except for the failure and sin of some ancester. David said that in sin did his mother conceive him. Even the Psalmist seems to understand that his very existance depended on past sins.

Yes, the absolute sovereignty of God and predestination fit your description.